The Instigator
Dpowell
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
GildedBindings
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Alabama was right to illegalize the woman being on top during sexual encounters.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Dpowell
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 509 times Debate No: 75002
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Dpowell

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: Summary
GildedBindings

Con

This seems incredibly interesting, I would like to thank my opponent for putting this out there.

I expect all factual claims to be backed up by sources, Pro expected to have the burden of proof.

Good luck, and hopefully this will be a great debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Dpowell

Pro

Section 1: The woman on top, or cowgirl, is the most dangerous sex position. This position caused half of all penile fractures that occur during sex. Studies from Advances in Urology hypothesized that a man is can not stop a painful action when the weight of a woman is on top of his erect penis. While when a man is in control he less chance of obtaining an injury. This seems like a good reason to make it illegal. When Alabama illegalized this sex position, they were saving men from receiving bad injuries. Almost every website says the same thing, so I may not post many resources.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

.
GildedBindings

Con

To begin, nowhere in old news nor in recent news can I find a law in Alabama banning women from being on top during sexual encounters- I read though my opponents previous article, but since it wasn't mentioned there, I simply did a search on google and did not find any records of this law. In his next argument, if my opponent would please provide evidence that this law does exist, it would be greatly appreciated, else forfeit of the burden of proof occur- this should be a simple task, I would just like to read any articles about this.

Either way, whether or not this law actually does exist, for the sake of this debate I will assume that it does, in fact, exist, unless my opponent fails to bringing up a source affirming this laws existence. If that was confusing, basically I'm going to assume it exists for this round.

>Contention 1- This Law is Unconstitutional

Under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Section 1 it states-

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu...;

This right here specifically says that states that, well, States, cannot make or enforce any law that deprives any person of life, liberty, or property- and consented sexual encounters fall under both life and liberty- our freedom to choose, which a State is not to interfere with.

Under a United States Amendment, the US specifically bans the creation and the enforcement of this rule, therefore the United States Federal Government sides with Con that this one sex position shouldn't be banned.

>Contention 2- Why doesn't the Government ban ALL sex?

"If our dominant consideration is to prevent "penile fractures," well it's a fair bet that 100% of these injuries occur during some kind of sex... so why not ask the government to ban ALL sex? If it appears absurd to ban all sex, then perhaps it's also absurd to regulate other common sexual practices that are consensual?"

I don't think I need to add anything more here.

>Contention 3- How many penile fractures actually occur, and is this number even significant?

For this argument, I looked into the source my opponent used above which highlights penile fractures in Brazil. It lists that there were a total of 44 suspected fractures over the course of 13 years. A mere forty-four in thirteen years! That's only about three and one third of a penile fracture every year!

Compare this to how many people in this area of Brazil are having sex, and this is less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of sexual encounters ending in a fractured penis. Seeing as there are next to 1 million people who reside in Campinas, Brazil <http://population.mongabay.com...;, and chances are that around half that number are sexually active, and around half THAT number being male, the grand total would come out to around 3 fractured penises out of 250,000- that's two hundred fifty thousand- per year, which, as I stated earlier, is less than a fraction OF A FRACTION of one percent of sexual encounters- especially considering that each person likely has multiple encounters per year.

This being the case, we can clearly see that penile fractures, while devastating, rarely occur, and therefore this rule is actually very unnecessary seeing as the only reason it exists is to curtail the almost nonexistent number of penile fractures. If the chance of getting a penile fracture is virtually zero, then why does a law exist to further reduce this number?

>Contention 4- The Sheer Absurdity of Enforcement

Exactly HOW is this law enforced? It's not like Alabama can just keep tabs on every citizen's sexual life- seeing as that would defy multiple laws on freedom and security- so HOW is a law about a specific sex position even enforced?

Who figures this kind of thing out? Is some guy just gonna barge in on everybody while they're having sex and regulate their sexual encounter? Is that also a law, that all sex must be monitored? If not, I ask again, how is this law even enforced? And if it isn't enforced, then obviously why should this law even exist?

In conclusion, I would like to refresh that I would like to see proof of this law in my opponents next round. Thank you, once again, and I will continue writing new arguments for the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Dpowell

Pro

Section 1:
It has come to my attention that Alabama has recently changed the law.

Section 2:
My opponent claimed that the American government can't make sex positions illegal, but they can, and they have. In Virginia every sex position is illegal except for the missionary. In Virginia it's also illegal to have sex with the lights on. (http://www.dumblaws.com...). Virginia being on the border of Washington D.C., may have its laws well known amongst congress, and if they do, obviously congress must not care. Plus there is still a sex law in Alabama. There, it's illegal to "deflower" a virgin, no matter the couples' marital status. ( http://www.dumblaws.com...)




Section 3:
My opponent asked why the government doesn't just ban sex. Well if they did that, our population would drop. The laws that the governments put up on certain sexual activities is because they deemed these activities immoral.


Section 4:
My opponent claims that penile fractures aren't a big deal and a lot of people don't get one. But according to medical literature, there are 2,000 cases a year, but there could be more. We'd never know because people are too embarrased by their predicament. (http://www.emaxhealth.com...). That may not seem like much but it can still be considered a big problem. Penile fractures actually occur very often in young men. Mostly 16-30 years of age, which this is just 50.88% of all penile fracture cases.


Section 5:
The government can easily hack into your smartphones and turn on your cameras and microphones. This could give them the ability to watch. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com...). For instace, the NSA have put their code into Android's operating system, this covers 3/4 of the world's smartphones. Remember the smartphone camera and mic thing? The government can use your computer too, and in the same exact way. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com...). The government has recently got a hold of a couple of hub satellites to spy on earth, and who knows how good this is. The tech may be good enough to see straight through our windows. ( http://skullsinthestars.com...)


Section 6:
I'd like to ask my opponent this. When has the modern government ever listened to the constitution?


GildedBindings

Con

GildedBindings forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Dpowell

Pro

All points extended.
GildedBindings

Con

GildedBindings forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
Wait how is this law even enforced and punished?
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
... Penile fractures are a thing? God damn that would suck
Posted by Dpowell 2 years ago
Dpowell
The other half comes from either the doggy style or the missionary style according to the medical records that I listed at the beginning of the debate.
Posted by zadignose 2 years ago
zadignose
Wow. The initial opinion expressed is insupportable and can be refuted in countless ways. A few possible counter-points include:

-The discussion of a health/safety rationale is a smokescreen to distract us from the true purpose of the law, which is to legislate sexual morality.
-The statistic quoted is empty, and by itself is non-persuasive. If half of "penile fractures" (an injury very few people have ever heard of) are caused by "cowgirl" sex, then what about the other half? How many injuries are being considered? How hazardous is the practice overall?
-If our dominant consideration is to prevent "penile fractures," well it's a fair bet that 100% of these injuries occur during some kind of sex... so why not ask the government to ban ALL sex? If it appears absurd to ban all sex, then perhaps it's also absurd to regulate other common sexual practices that are consensual?
-The law is absolutely unenforceable for the vast majority of cases where it could be applied.
-It establishes a precedent whereby the government could intrude into peoples sex lives on almost any pretext.
-If it's hazardous for a MAN to have a woman on top, might it not be equally hazardous for a WOMAN to have a man on top? Why does the law privilege the health/safety considerations of the man over the woman.
-Compared to all of the thousands of possible cases where the law must strike a balance between public safety and individual liberty, why does THIS case deserve legislative or judicial attention? E.g., shouldn't we first consider whether families should be allowed to have swimming pools on their property, or allow children access to them, when the lives of millions of children are affected by drowning, as opposed to the virtually unknown issue of supposedly increased risk of injury during consensual sex?
Posted by brad1999 2 years ago
brad1999
It is unconstutional under the 14th Amendment of the united states constitution section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
DpowellGildedBindingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture